Nor were they acquainted with any definite plan of battle. The main brunt of the fight was borne by the nobles, who fought from their chariots, and whose single combat with renowned leaders on the other side excited such universal interest that very often the battle stopped meantime. Moreover, these duels were often decisive for the victory or defeat of the whole army. The nobles appeared in full armour, accompanied by their charioteers, on their war chariots, usually drawn by two horses. On the vase painting depicted in Fig. 166 the painter has represented four horses drawing the chariot, but in so doing he was not following an old tradition, since in his time the custom of fighting with chariots had long ceased, but rather the universal practice of ancient vase painting, which always represented war chariots with four horses, following the example of the _Quadrigae_ used in races. The warrior stands holding the reins in his left hand, and his spear in the right, and has not yet mounted his chariot; he is in full armour, and so is the warrior standing in front of the chariot, and consequently we are justified in supposing that this really represents a war chariot. The Greeks, when they fought from their chariots, dashed at full speed from their own ranks against the foe, and often challenged an enemy to single combat with words of bitter mockery; this was begun with lances, and afterwards, when the combatants had got close together and possibly left their chariots, with the sword; even stones were not despised in the heat of combat. Cavalry was unknown in the time of Homer; the masses of infantry seldom fought hand to hand, but usually from a distance with bows and javelins. But when they came to close quarters they closed their ranks and locked their shields together; for the principle of the closed phalanx, which became so important for Greek warfare, was indicated even in the heroic age. Their mode of warfare shows the uncivilised condition of the Greeks at that time. Cunning and ambush were regarded as permissible, and cruelty and harshness to the fallen enemy were universal. The captives taken in war became slaves if they were not ransomed, and were sometimes even mercilessly sacrificed. It was considered a glorious deed to rob the fallen enemy of his armour in the midst of the fight, nor was it ignoble to leave his corpse unburied, to be consumed by the wild beasts. Still, there were traces of noble self-sacrifice and comradeship in their conduct towards their own fellow-countrymen. In the following centuries, after many revolutions and internal contests, the tribes were combined [Illustration: FIG. 166.]